send the Nigerian and Injun.Originally Posted by Madison320
Pfizer Macht Frei!
Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.
Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!
Short Income Tax Video
The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes
The Federalist Papers, No. 15:
Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.
That might be true. But whites are only 10% of the population there. And the average household income income for whites in 2011 South Africa is around $50,000. The average household income for blacks is $9000. If you base voting on income, you are going to have a voting system that looks similar to what it did during Apartheid. The people wouldn't go for that.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...elas-lifetime/
Yup. There wouldn't be hardly any blacks voting, and they'd never go for it. But I think it would work. And over time there'd be more blacks working, paying taxes and voting.
That the plantation slave is less free than if he were on his own (i.e. not a slave) is just a tautology.
You need to ask how, under what conditions of governance, a person is more/less likely to be made a slave at all.
Anyway, my point is simply that the slave would likely be more free if the plantation owner were one guy, rather than a commune.
Or, a person is less likely to be enslaved (or oppressed in some fashion short of slavery) by a monarchy than by a democracy.
No. For monarchy to stick, to become stable (which it must for the monarch to have the good incentives we're discussing), the first couple generations of monarchs have to be much more competent than Trump. Now, in an a well-established monarchy, the occasional Trump-grade monarch could be borne without serious problems, as he would have to be, from time to time. Augustus couldn't have been Trump, otherwise there would have been no empire at all; but a Caligula/Trump can be borne from time to time without wrecking the system.Also would we be better off if we suspended elections and let the Trump family become the official Monarchy?
Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 08-06-2017 at 10:45 AM.
More free than the slave on his own.
Your argument is basically that an actual slave is more free than the average person living under the average government.
You don't get to pick your Monarchy. That's the problem.
See my last comment again, I added to it since you responded.
Who picked Trump?You don't get to pick your Monarchy. That's the problem.
OK, I surrender.
Would you at least agree that between allowing everyone to vote, and only allowing net taxpayers to vote, that the latter is a better system?
A general point:
I've said that a monarch is to a private property owner as a democratic state is to a commune. Don't take this to mean (as it seems some people have) that only a monarch effectively owns his subjects; all states effectively own their subjects (that is what sovereignty means - the ultimate decision-making power). If you like to think of subjects as slaves, alright, but then understand that the citizens of democratic states are also slaves. The question here is not whether it is better to ruled or to not be ruled, the question is, given that one is going to be ruled, whose rule is likely to be more mild, the king's or the parliament's?
Like I said, I surrender.
Would you at least agree that between allowing everyone to vote, and only allowing net taxpayers to vote, that the latter is a better system?
Yes, but only marginally, and only for a short time. You have at least two problems.
1. Taxation isn't the only source of boodle, and not all boodle comes in the form of direct payments from the state in cash or kind. Voters/net-taxpayers could still redistribute wealth to themselves from non-voters/non-net-tax-payers via regulations (e.g. granting themselves competitive advantages in the market). This can also be done within the group of voters/net-tax-payers: e.g. 51% of them could implement a regulation that gives them an advantage against the 49%. Now, you might object that these benefits should be counted for purposes of determining net taxpayer status but, apart from practical, econometric problems with doing that, there's a more fundamental problem...
2. Q. Who interprets or can amend the constitution which defines who can vote? A. The majority of voters at any given moment. In practice, there's nothing to prevent any party, dominant at the moment, from amending or dishonestly "reinterpreting" the constitution so as to justify whatever boodle-seeking enterprise they want to pursue. I appreciate the logic of your proposed solution, but it only gets you halfway to where you need to go. You recognize that constitutions alone cannot restrict the rulers of a state, since the rulers themselves interpret the constitution; and so the solution is to make sure that the rulers have good incentives for liberal behavior. The problem with your method of ensuring that the rulers have good incentives is that those incentives only exist if the constitution is honored (by them!). Ultimately, you're still reliant on a constitution as a deus ex machina, just as in any ordinary democracy.
P.S. For a significantly better solution, but short of monarchy, consider government by joint stock company. e.g. everyone gets a share (entitling him to dividends from state profits and voting rights) on his 18th birthday, which is saleable. In practice, shares should come to be owned by a relatively small group of people (as in any ordinary joint stock company), who would have strong incentives to operate the state on a profitable (i.e. liberal) basis. Popular acceptance of this sort of solution has some precedent, at least by analogy, in the privatization of former communist economies in Eastern Europe.
If only net taxpayers could vote, they would become the overwhelming majority so the problems you mention would go away. If you're one of the 51% who is supporting the other 49%, your main goal will to spread the tax burden. In fact I bet that very quickly NO ONE will be getting free stuff and isn't that what we want?
A. You didn't address my second point, which is really the more damning.
B. Why wouldn't/couldn't 51% of net tax payers vote to pass a regulation granting themselves the exclusive right to sell food, or practice medicine, etc? This would be profitable for them, would it not? By the way, realistically, the problem wouldn't so much be millions of voters granting themselves privileges, as millions of voters being persuaded by media to grant smaller, more concentrated lobbies privileges, as happens presently.
How are those 51% going to all agree on one thing? That makes no sense. There's only one thing that they'll all agree on and that how to reduce their tax burden.
You didn't address my point that the 51% will quickly become close to 100%. So any problems with "restricted voting" won't get any better with unrestricted voting.
I'm not saying there won't be problems, only that it's a vast improvement over unlimited democracy.
Why..?
How do you think 51% of people in a normal democracy come to agree on things?
Why would that happen?You didn't address my point that the 51% will quickly become close to 100%.
Self interest.
How does that work?
I'm not following your logic...
The one thing taxpayers have in common is they all PAY TAXES. It's in their self interest to REDUCE their taxes. There's a 99.99% chance that they are going to agree an this, by definition. So they will vote for politicians who will shrink government and spread the tax burden to the remaining 49%.
There's a 0% chance that they are going to agree to give themselves the exclusive right to sell avocados. That's not something they have in common.
Taxpayers are not some random group. They are ones funding the government. It makes perfect logical sense that the ones paying for something should decide how the money gets spent. If you have a party with your friends and only a couple people contribute to the beer fund, they're the ones who should get to pick the beer. Not the free loaders. Besides that, if you really think you should be able to vote, QUIT TAKING FREE STUFF!!!! Problem solved.
I'll repeat my earlier question: how do you think 51% of voters in the US today end up supporting, say, professional licensing?
Because most of them are not taxpayers, so they don't care how government spends its money.
...still not making sense.
Let's suppose I'm a doctor who pays $1000/year in taxes and receives no direct benefits from government (I'm a net taxpayer). If the state implemented medical licensing, my tax bill would increase by $10/year (the minor administrative costs of the licensing system), while my income from my medical practice would increase by $100,000 as a result of less competition (note that I'd still be a net taxpayer, I'd actually be paying more tax net). So, why wouldn't I support medical licensing?
If you say "Well, you would," but not enough other people would agree," alright, but that's true now, with universal suffrage.
...and medical licensing we have.
So, what's the difference?
Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 08-06-2017 at 03:15 PM.
Suppose there's an island nation of 100 people. 50 people are taxpayers, 50 are on welfare. There's one doctor. The odds that medical licensing would pass with the 50 taxpayers (49 of them are not doctors) is less then if all 100 were able to vote since the 50 welfare voters wouldn't give a crap.
But that's irrelevant to my question "Is restricted voting better". You answered ,"only for a brief period" and I assumed from your answer that you thought unrestricted voting was better the rest of the time. So basically I gathered you think unrestricted voting is better.
I'm saying restricted voting is clearly better because taxpayers will vote for less government, less welfare and a more even taxing system.
Your response about licensing is AT BEST a wash between restricted and unrestricted voting.
So basically in the best case scenario for unrestricted voting:
restricted voting:
- reduces welfare and the size of government
- does nothing to reduce other forms of government interference
unrestricted voting:
- increases welfare and the size of government
- does nothing to reduce other forms of government interference
So either way restricted voting is better.
That really makes no sense. Was that a typo? You're supporting my argument here.
Both groups would give a crap, since both would be paying more for medicine. But it's true that the disincentive for the taxpayer to support medical licensing would be greater, insofar as, in addition to higher medical costs, he has to pay higher taxes. In reality, it's not going to make all that much difference though. Once the electorate gets beyond a very small number, rational ignorance sets it, and the vast majority of voters are no longer paying enough attention to care, even about legislation which harms them - it becomes a contest between small, contracted lobbies via manipulation of public opinion, rather than between large blocks of informed and organized voters. Nonetheless, as I said a few posts back, an electorate of taxpayers is marginally better than a universal suffrage electorate.
...until it's transformed into something just as bad through constitutional amendment/reinterpretation.
No, I meant that restricted voting is better, but it won't last long, and will soon revert to something that's the same as unrestricted voting, as the constitutional arrangements that work against the boodle-seeking desires of those in power are stripped away.But that's irrelevant to my question "Is restricted voting better". You answered ,"only for a brief period" and I assumed from your answer that you thought unrestricted voting was better the rest of the time. So basically I gathered you think unrestricted voting is better.
I think it would work, but I doubt we'll ever see it happen.
Honestly, send in arms/Spec Ops, form some Right Wing Liberation Squads, and set about "psychically removing" the trouble makers and the aliens.
Really this.
Go Galt, let it all fall apart, let the bastards starve, start over again.
How about an exchange program , there is genocide of white farmers there, de facto
sanctioned by the government , how about we trade splc , Jackson , Sharpton, and
every other racist activist that hates Caucasians in return for the displaced and
at risk White African Farmers?
Hate us, ?/ great , go do some good , go make Africa Great Again ('again' ha ha, you know what I mean).
But when you start again, what system would you implement? I believe any unlimited democratic system, that gives equal voting weight to parasites and producers, is doomed. I don't think race matters in the long run. It's just that in South Africa the racial element sped up the process. It's basically unlimited democracy on steroids. Normally it takes a democracy maybe 50-150 years to destroy property rights and ruin the country. In SA it only took 20 years.
Constitutional republic, vastly limited centralized power, ZERO non whites allowed to hold any office, vote, followed by limited the franchise to property holders, men, vets. Mandatory firearm ownership, training.
Race DOES matter, as genes do shape the people, culture, which does shape the political landscape. You can not have one group share the same space, nation state with another when one is genetically pre disposed to achieve better results, the lesser groups resent this, use the power of the state to steal the fruits of the labor of the successful group under the color of law.
Its hard to have race issues when the nation is all the same race.
Everyone KNEW this would happen in S.A...And just like it would all the $#@!libs could not care less, they just focused on another issue like the NPCs they are.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us